General Sanchez Sounds a Little Bitter
Oct 13, 2007 Military
Retired General Ricardo Sanchez, who was the commanding general of all the troops in Iraq, has spoken publicly giving his opinions about the war and the way it was handled. General Sanchez is entitled to his opinion and he knows a lot more than I do about running a war but he seems to have placed blame on everyone but himself.
General Sanchez said that the war was a “nightmare with no end in sight” and blamed Congress, the State Department, the Bush Administration and any number of other government agencies. He said we did not have enough troops and equipment going in (I agree with that) and that surge was a desperate attempt to make up for misguided policies. That might be partly true because we should have had more troops from the start. However, the assessment of General Petraeus is slightly different and a bit more optimistic, probably because he has been in Iraq recently and Sanchez has been out for a little while.
Sanchez is entitled to his opinion and I think he might be a little bitter because his was a rocky command. This is not to say that he is a bad leader, I do not know him, but he had to spend part of his time fending off the problems associated with Abu Ghraib. He was eventually cleared of any wrong doing but that had to have consumed a lot of his time, time that should have been spent leading the troops in war. I can certainly understand his sentiments and his anger at the government and while I disagree with him on what actions he could have taken while in command to let his superiors know how he felt, I certainly understand why he is bitter. The problem is, General Sanchez placed blame squarely on everyone in government. He picked the administration, Congress, and other government entities. However, the left will cherry pick his comments and make the criticism all about President Bush. This statement will be used in a Democratic political campaign to blast the right:
“From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration’s latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize the political, economic and military power,†Sanchez said.
And this one will be ignored:
“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable.â€
Mark my words, the first quote will be used by MorOn.org and Democratic candidates to show how terribly the administration did and will ignore the quote that places blame on everyone, including a Congress that takes decisions based upon polls and fails to actually lead. It is unwise to give the enemy anything that can be used as propaganda and Sanchez’s words can be blasted all over al Jazeera and at the DNC (the same entity).
The interesting thing is that the very groups who will latch on to the words of General Sanchez and hail him as a truth telling hero who thinks the war is a failure and use this to claim they support the troops are the ones who attacked General Petraeus because he did not say what they liked.
I wonder if General Sanchez is thinking about running for office or if he is lining up a gig as a war analyst at some cable news network because he has come out with both barrels blazing. I am not sure Sanchez would be good for political office and I would be weary about voting for him (though he would not be running in my state anyway) based upon his admitted silence about things he thought were wrong because I think leadership involves expressing those opinions.
I wish Sanchez well in whatever he does but I think he might have done the troops more good if he had spoken up a few years ago rather than wait. I also think pointing the fingers in every direction except inward is just a defense mechanism to deflect some of the blame that certainly rests upon his shoulders.
If you fail to speak up about something that you know is wrong you are just as responsible for it as the folks who did it.
Sources:
My Way News
Stars and Stripes
Tags: Abu Ghraib, Commentary, Iraq, Pace, Petraeus, Sanchez, war
Does John Edwards Wear a Skirt?
Oct 5, 2007 Political
Elizabeth Edwards has made her views known regarding Rush Limbaugh only she took a different approach than attacking him for what he did not say about our soldiers. Instead, she attacked Limbaugh’s draft status, which was 1-Y (changed to 4-F when 1-Y was done away with) in order to indirectly say that Limbaugh should not call anyone a phony soldier when he had what Edwards views as a phony deferment. I will not discuss what Limbaugh said because everyone with a brain knows exactly what he said and what was meant by it. The Democrats are using this non issue to make something out of nothing. The old saying goes that if you tell a lie long enough it is accepted as true. That is why Global Warming is a “settled” issue.
Rush Limbaugh had a legitimate deferment from military service. Regardless of what people think about it or what he could have done to make himself eligible, he was legitimately deferred by the military for a legitimate medical problem. It is amazing to me that Edwards would take issue with Limbaugh’s words considering the phony soldier her husband teamed up with during the last Presidential election. Let us look at her husband, who has been less than honest about his draft status. From what I can tell he registered and had a draft number but according to one site he should have been drafted and was not. I have to wonder why that is and why Ms. Edwards would bring up something that could end up in a backlash. The last thing Edwards needs is a group of people discussing his military record…
What I really don’t understand is why Elizabeth Edwards keeps injecting herself into issues. She is not running for office and her constant babble is not helpful. John Edwards already has a reputation as a girly man and having his wife speak out, many times to defend him, does not help with that image. Edwards gives the impression that he is a pampered little wuss who cannot fight his own battles. While I realize that in the Limbaugh remarks Elizabeth was not taking up for John I also realize that real men do not send their wives out to take up for them. I can just imagine John Edwards getting into an argument that leads to fisticuffs and before the first punch is thrown he runs in to get Elizabeth to fight for him.
This is America and the Edwards are free to say what they want but before they attack Limbaugh for what he said and before they twist his words, they should be prepared to demonstrate how much they have done for the troops. How much money has John Edwards raised for the military? What veteran organizations or causes has he helped out? I am willing to bet that Limbaugh has raised more money for the military than Edwards has raised for his campaign.
After watching this iteration of the John Edwards ego stroking campaign, I am convinced that he wears skirts at home while Elizabeth wears the pants.
Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, AZAMATTEROFACT, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, , The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke’s, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, Gone Hollywood, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: draft, Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards, Limbaugh, Link Fest, Political, war, wussy
The Left Will Hate This News, Fewer Soldiers Killed
Oct 1, 2007 Military
The left in America will not be happy about the news out of Iraq where it was reported that the number of US deaths in the month of September was the lowest in 14 months and marked the fourth month of decrease. Seems to me that this coincides with the time line of the surge:
US military losses in Iraq for September stood at 70 on Sunday, the lowest monthly figure since July last year, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures.
The figure also marks the fourth consecutive drop in the monthly death toll following a high of 121 in May. June saw 93 deaths, July 82 and August 79. The monthly toll in July 2006 was 53.
Two US soldiers were killed on Saturday in separate incidents, pushing the overall toll of American losses since the March 2003 invasion to 3,801. Breitbart
The anti war left is hell bent on using the names and faces of our war dead to force a surrender. They love to count the number of dead and use that information as a reason to stop and surrender immediately. Since they insist on using the number of dead as a benchmark to bring them home, will they now say it is OK to stay?
We are winning the war and the surge is working. Anything good for America is bad for the Democrats and the rest of the liberals. I wonder how this will change what the Democratic candidates have to say?
This also cannot be good news for those in Congress who want to surrender. Now they have to think of another reason…
Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, guerrilla radio, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Stageleft, Nuke’s, third world county, DragonLady’s World, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: KIA, liberals, Link Fest, Political Opinion, surrender, traiters, treason, war
Is Ahmadinejad a Tutored Mouthpiece?
Sep 28, 2007 Uncategorized
Recently, I wrote an item about Iranian President Ahmadinejad and how he was “insulted” at his Columbia University speech. He might have felt insulted but how he felt was nothing compared to how many in this country felt about he appearance. A regular commenter, Patsy, made an interesting observation:
I’ve been thinking about something recently, and I’d like to run it by you. The PR moves Ahmadinejad has been making, related to his recent United Nations trip, look and seem like they’ve been choreographed by MoveOn.org’s public relations department. Is it possible that George Soros, or rather whoever/whatever is behind Mr. Soros, is advising Iran and Iran’s President? After hearing him speak, seeing his lack of magnetism or auctoritas [sic], it doesn’t appear that the moves he’s making or the words he’s speaking are his own.
When I listened to I’m a dinner jacket speak on 60 Minutes I felt he was parroting the talking points of the left. He used phrases and discussed things that are right in line with their game plan and while I might dismiss his rhetoric as his desire to align with the left against President Bush, when he mentioned Katrina, I could not dismiss his rants that easily.
It was evident that Ahmadinejad was here to bolster the anti war crowd and to ensure it was harder to attack his country, a prospect that has him trembling, despite his claims that Iran will beat us. Just prior to his trip to New York his country had a huge display of military weapons that are supposed to scare us but many know that the Iranians are no match for us in the arena of technologically advanced weapons. He can hit Israel and our troops in Iraq and we can hit his country from our continent. I think we have the advantage and I think he knows it. The Syrians and the Iranians are in fear because Israel attacked a military target in Syria, one that was well into Syria, and they did it undetected. None of the advanced anti aircraft weaponry that Syria uses (which is the same Iran uses) even detected the intruders. They all realize that the bluster they managed has been dampened bu the fact that they are not as protected as they thought they were. Couple this with the reports that the US had a hand in silencing those weapons and there is reason for those sponsors of terror to cower.
But did Ahmadinejad have help with his appearance? We might never know because the media only reports secrets the US government is trying to keep. It would not be surprising to find out that George Soros or his minions had a hand in helping the Iranian President craft his appearance. They are against this country and are actively working for our defeat so helping the enemy would be right up their alley. Soros spent a great deal of money in an attempt to give John Kerry a win in the last presidential election and Kerry consorted with our enemies in the past. Ted Kennedy met secretly with the Russians in an attempt to derail the goals of Ronald Reagan and a number of our members of Congress have been to the Middle East and bashed our country, its policies, and our president so the Democratic Party is no stranger to aiding and comforting the enemy.
How could anyone, though, not see that Ahmadinejad was disingenuous? He claimed that Iran had no homosexuals and we know this to be a blatant lie. What Iran actually has is no openly gay people, or at least none who are openly gay for very long because they are executed by their government. He claimed that the women in his country were the most free in the world and yet they are arrested if they fail to cover themselves. They are jailed or killed if they are victims of rape and the testimony of a man is superior to the testimony of a woman. I am willing to bet that very few “free” people in his country would be in good shape if they protested him in the fashion our people did. Ahmadinejad talks of wanting peace and that there will be no war but his country is shelling Iraq. His military is shelling deeper and deeper in order to harass and kill the Kurds. These are provocative acts and I would like to see a few projectiles head in the other direction. Perhaps if we ended up killing a slew of their military forces they might think twice before shelling. Maybe not, Hezbollah and Hamas don’t seem to learn every time their get the snot kicked out of them. They still lob rockets into Israel.
There was a lot of talk about Ahmadinejad’s appearance and how he was entitled to free speech. This, of course, is ridiculous. Free speech in this country is for those who are citizens. We are not required to give any non citizen a platform from which to speak (except under treaty at the UN). We are not required to invite them here or to allow them any time to say anything. We do not have to give them a place to speak or to allow them access to our media. These things are for our citizens. I dare say, none of us would enjoy such freedoms in his country. I also think he and all these other despots who think they rule the world should consider giving their people back home the freedoms that they enjoy when they visit here. As I stated, they are not free to speak and we are not obligated to give them a venue but, our citizens and organizations are free to invite whomever they wish.
I have to believe, lacking any evidence, that no one officially helped Ahmadinejad with his visit. It is more likely that the reason he sounded like a Democratic mouth piece because he and the Democrats have common goals. They want the US to lose in Iraq, they want President Bush to suffer defeat, and they want Iran not to be attacked.
Assisted, No. Common ideologies and goals, Yes!
Tags: Ahmadinejad, Democrats, Iran, mouthpiece, Political Commentary, Soros, traiters, tutor, war, Wide Awakes Radio
Hillary Rodham, Arrogant Con Woman
Sep 27, 2007 Uncategorized
I have written on a number of occasions about Hillary Clinton and her insatiable appetite for power. She has lusted for power from the early days of her husband’s political career and to this day she thinks of nothing else. Of course she tells people lots of things and she verbalizes all the things that people want to hear but her goal is to get more power. Hillary Clinton will say whatever she thinks needs to be said and she will do whatever she thinks needs to be done in order to get elected. Hillary Rodham is much like politicians of a century ago who, unencumbered by the electronic age, said what people wanted to hear and often delivering different versions or opposite opinions depending upon where they were. They could always attribute any reporting of it as a misquote. It worked well in a time when people in differing states often knew little about what was going on across the country.
The age of instant communication changed all that because claims that would have passed unnoticed years ago are scrutinized and compared to other things that candidates said. This is also true for the legacy media. Dam Rather would have gotten away with his biased reporting a few decades ago. Instead, he ran into a wall of people who could instantly debunk his efforts.
Hillary continues to be a politician who will say whatever is needed regardless of what her position was at any other time. Either she has not fully grasped the power of the electronic age or she is so arrogant that she believes that she can say what she wants and get away with it. I am banking on the latter. She, and her husband for that matter, has gotten away with so much that she believes that nothing she says or does has consequences. In the event she is caught in a problem there is always the Vast Right Wing conspiracy upon which to place the blame. It looks to me like Hillary Rodham starts each day as if no one had ever heard anything she has said. She starts as if whatever she says will be fresh and accepted without question. Last night’s debate was yet another shining example.
During the debate, Tim Russert asked if it would be OK to torture a terrorist if there was an imminent threat to Americans (they always use the nuclear bomb is about to go off and this guys knows where it is). Rodham contradicted the opinion of her husband by saying that this cannot be done under any circumstances; “It cannot be American policy, period.” That is pretty clear. We cannot, according to her, torture the guy who knows where the bomb that is about to explode is located. She even indicated that she would have to talk to Bill about it, since his opinion differs (and therefore must be wrong).
She received applause for her answer and true to form there was no follow up to challenge her on her change of heart. You see, not very long ago Hillary Rodham said that it would be OK to torture under that circumstance.
Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: “If we’re going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law.”
She said then the “ticking time bomb” scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.
“In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable,” she said. NY Daily News
In a year’s time (and before she announced her candidacy) Hillary Rodham went from the we need to do it tough girl to the absolutely not panderer. Last October, she was preparing for her reelection to the Senate which was really just a prelude to her run for the White House. I indicated that she had those plans for a long time even though she denied such silly things. When she needed to begin convincing Americans that she can hold the office (and before an election) she was tough and would do anything to save American lives. Last night she was before a national audience and only a portion of that audience can vote for her. Hillary made sure she said what needed to be said to the liberals who will be voting in the primary. Should she succeed in winning that nomination she will be tougher on these things and, no doubt, take a number of positions. She will take whatever position she thinks will make the most people vote for her.
She voted for the war and her talk at the time was how she could support the President and how Hussein had WMD and had to go. When the going in Iraq got tough, Hillary was lied to about the WMD and George Bush messed up the war. He got us into it and it will be up to super Hill to get us out. She would not take Bill’s last name when she lived in Arkansas but when she found out that the conservative base down there did not appreciate women who did that, she miraculously changed her last name. I guess they figured if she was too ashamed of him to have his name he was not worth their vote. She traded her principle for votes. Rodham stated that if Bush would not bring the troops home she would do it when she was elected. Last night she (and most of the others) could not commit to a time when the troops would be brought home. They might be there past the next president’s watch. There are many, many examples of Hillary Rodham saying one thing one place and another thing at a different place.
Hillary Rodham is Satan in the flesh and she will say whatever it takes to get elected and then she will run this country in to the ground (and blame it on George Bush). Hillary has begun to act more like Kerry with the Flip-Flops. Though I would have thought she would have learned from his problems, it is obvious that her arrogance allows her to do what she wants and to believe Americans are stupid enough to fall for her con game.
The problem is, about half of them are…
Tags: con job, flip flop, Hillary, Iraq, Kerry, liar, Political Commentary, torture, war